|
|
Overdriving NO Tubes
Almost every matter can change phase from state to liquid and gas
and all of it depends of the temperature. But I guess you call Argon "a true gas" because it has gas phase in a room temperature, right? :-) Ok, you want to go there :-) True gases are molecules not ions, O2, N2, CO2, Argon, Neon and they occur naturally as gas, you can't see them and most make up air. A gas also has a perfect molecular mobility and the indefinite property of expansion A vapor is not a gas really, it is quantity of visible matter diffused or suspended in air and air is made of gases. Vapors may occur as molecule or ions. Vapor does not =gas and gas does not = vapor Thus water or Mercury are not gases but vapors and using the term "gas" is using it loosely and not by its proper meaning . However, some do choose to do so but it is incorrect. You know what a MV lamp is, Mercury Vapor, it is not called a MG lamp because it is not a gas. Air does not have water gas in it, it is always called water vapor and there is a reason for that, it is not a gas. Think of vapor as a very find dust "But some of missunderstanding here can be derived from the fact, that English is my second language, as it was stated correctly on this ng recently :-))" I did not know that where are you from ? "Do I understand correctly you are saying design of gas discharge lamps are your profession?" No you do not understand correctly. Go back and re-read it. I said I know the guy that invented the tri-phosphor lamps, his name is Dr Perry Thrasher -- Boomer Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php Want to See More ? Please Join Our Growing Membership www.coralrealm.com If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up "Pszemol" wrote in message ... : "Boomer" wrote in message ... : "I was not talking about Argon but about "gases in the tube" :-))" : : OK, I'll let you off the hook since you say ""gases in the tube" , in which case the only : real "gas" is Mercury vapor and only Mercury vapor, with the very very small addition of : some of he emissive material being "gases". : : Ok, thank you for your mercy ;-) : : Aragon is a true gas and not a vapor. : : I do not like the "true gas" term... How do you define it? : Gas is gas :-) There is no true gas or false gas :-)) : Almost every matter can change phase from state to liquid and gas : and all of it depends of the temperature. But I guess you call Argon : "a true gas" because it has gas phase in a room temperature, right? :-) : : One other thing; : : "Plasma is ionized gas :-)))" : : Well, that is only half of it. :-)) A Plasma is a stream of positively charged : ions accompanied by about equal proportions of electrons : : By "ionized gas" I ment whole gas in state of ionizations. : No ions alone, but with electrons detached from original atoms too :-) : But some of missunderstanding here can be derived from the fact, : that English is my second language, as it was stated correctly : on this ng recently :-)) : : "I was also correct with the three-phosphors tubes " : : I know the guy personnel, that invented all of the tri lamps with the built in reflectors, : Dr. Perry Thrasher, know matter what name is on the bulb. Perry has left the company ,do : to illness and I haven't found out where he went other than California for health reasons. : Me and JB ( John Burleson) had the first sets :-) : : http://www.light-sources.com/ : : Do I understand correctly you are saying design of gas discharge lamps are your profession? |
Overdriving NO Tubes
Have you sent it for the 2nd time or you changed somthing I did not notice?
BTW - our discussion about vapors/gases reminds me one confusion with vegetables and fruits. For a biologist, a red tomato is a fruit, a part of the plant, the one carrying seeds. For a cook, a tomato is not a fruit. For a cook tomato is a vegetable... This is the difference we probably need to grasp when talking about vapors and gases :-) Vegetables used by the cook can be leaves, roots or fruits in the eyes of a biologist. Like for the cook, the "true fruit" is an apple or a plum for you "true gases" are oxygen, nitrogen but mercury in a gas form you call vapor. Cheers, Pszemol "Boomer" wrote in message ... Almost every matter can change phase from state to liquid and gas and all of it depends of the temperature. But I guess you call Argon "a true gas" because it has gas phase in a room temperature, right? :-) Ok, you want to go there :-) True gases are molecules not ions, O2, N2, CO2, Argon, Neon and they occur naturally as gas, you can't see them and most make up air. A gas also has a perfect molecular mobility and the indefinite property of expansion A vapor is not a gas really, it is quantity of visible matter diffused or suspended in air and air is made of gases. Vapors may occur as molecule or ions. Vapor does not =gas and gas does not = vapor Thus water or Mercury are not gases but vapors and using the term "gas" is using it loosely and not by its proper meaning . However, some do choose to do so but it is incorrect. You know what a MV lamp is, Mercury Vapor, it is not called a MG lamp because it is not a gas. Air does not have water gas in it, it is always called water vapor and there is a reason for that, it is not a gas. Think of vapor as a very find dust "But some of missunderstanding here can be derived from the fact, that English is my second language, as it was stated correctly on this ng recently :-))" I did not know that where are you from ? "Do I understand correctly you are saying design of gas discharge lamps are your profession?" No you do not understand correctly. Go back and re-read it. I said I know the guy that invented the tri-phosphor lamps, his name is Dr Perry Thrasher -- Boomer Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php Want to See More ? Please Join Our Growing Membership www.coralrealm.com If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up "Pszemol" wrote in message ... : "Boomer" wrote in message ... : "I was not talking about Argon but about "gases in the tube" :-))" : : OK, I'll let you off the hook since you say ""gases in the tube" , in which case the only : real "gas" is Mercury vapor and only Mercury vapor, with the very very small addition of : some of he emissive material being "gases". : : Ok, thank you for your mercy ;-) : : Aragon is a true gas and not a vapor. : : I do not like the "true gas" term... How do you define it? : Gas is gas :-) There is no true gas or false gas :-)) : Almost every matter can change phase from state to liquid and gas : and all of it depends of the temperature. But I guess you call Argon : "a true gas" because it has gas phase in a room temperature, right? :-) : : One other thing; : : "Plasma is ionized gas :-)))" : : Well, that is only half of it. :-)) A Plasma is a stream of positively charged : ions accompanied by about equal proportions of electrons : : By "ionized gas" I ment whole gas in state of ionizations. : No ions alone, but with electrons detached from original atoms too :-) : But some of missunderstanding here can be derived from the fact, : that English is my second language, as it was stated correctly : on this ng recently :-)) : : "I was also correct with the three-phosphors tubes " : : I know the guy personnel, that invented all of the tri lamps with the built in reflectors, : Dr. Perry Thrasher, know matter what name is on the bulb. Perry has left the company ,do : to illness and I haven't found out where he went other than California for health reasons. : Me and JB ( John Burleson) had the first sets :-) : : http://www.light-sources.com/ : : Do I understand correctly you are saying design of gas discharge lamps are your profession? |
Overdriving NO Tubes
What do you mean by "putting out 130 watts"?
You rather say "consumes 130 watts". You do not measure the light output in watts. This is an electric not light output unit... Good point. I talked to him again and asked him about that. The guy that he knows measured the OUTPUT of the lights. (with a photometer) I cant remember if it was 6000 lumens for the fixture or for each bulb (I'm pretty sure it was each) Anyway, the guy that he knows did the mathmatical conversion and concluded the lights were using 130watts. After 1 year, the bulbs are barely darkened on the ends and HE has not noticed a change in the color. I may not try this for my first corals but I am most certainly going to try this for my FW tanks. |
Overdriving NO Tubes
"Richard Reynolds" wrote in message news:pHt2b.10674$Qy4.1956@fed1read05...
What do you mean by "putting out 130 watts"? You rather say "consumes 130 watts". You do not measure the light output in watts. This is an electric not light output unit... watts has nothing to do with electric anything, it is a measurement of power, it can be manythings, candlepower,horsepower .... they can all be converted to watts I was not talking about watts generally but in the context of this particular subject - watts printed of the bulb or balast are not the measurment of the amount of light in that case but the estimated amount of electric power the bulb consumes. To get an idea about the amount of light you need to consider the ratio the electric current is converted into light in such design. And it is far from 100%. We do not even know if the balast for 130W VHO does output equal amount of electric power to the NO bulb in overdriving conditions or not. There are chanses it does if the lenght of the tube and its thicknes is the same, but as Boomer has indicated, things are going "crazy" inside the tube, so it my behave different creating different electrical conditions for the tube being the load for the balast. Good point. I talked to him again and asked him about that. The guy that he knows measured the OUTPUT of the lights. (with a photometer) I cant remember if it was 6000 lumens for the fixture or for each bulb (I'm pretty sure it was each) Anyway, the guy that he knows did the mathmatical conversion and concluded the lights were using 130watts. thats an interesting calculation and interesting wording, but as I didnt do the testing I dont know whats missing from it :) I would suggest to Mort to invite the guy to our newsgroup and ask him to explain results of his tests here... I will be very interesting to talk about this first hand. The difference between 6000 lumens each or 6000 the whole fixture is significant enough that if we do not have this "detail" sorted our we cannot treat this test as educational for us :-) After 1 year, the bulbs are barely darkened on the ends and HE has not noticed a change in the color. noticing spectrum shifts isnt very effective, you really need special equipment Exactly. Human eye adapts to white color in very wide ranges. It is enough to compare to white pages of different paper types. Both seem white when you look at each separately, but you can easily tell which one is "whiter" when you put them side-by-side. I may not try this for my first corals but I am most certainly going to try this for my FW tanks. the best plan Ive heard of yet :), might add FO to the list also :) This plan does not bring us closer to use overdriven NO over reef, where the light spectrum is really important, does it? |
Overdriving NO Tubes
"Pszemol" wrote in message ... "Richard Reynolds" wrote in message news:pHt2b.10674$Qy4.1956@fed1read05... What do you mean by "putting out 130 watts"? You rather say "consumes 130 watts". You do not measure the light output in watts. This is an electric not light output unit... watts has nothing to do with electric anything, it is a measurement of power, it can be manythings, candlepower,horsepower .... they can all be converted to watts I was not talking about watts generally but in the context of this particular subject - watts printed of the bulb or balast are not the measurment of the amount of light in that case but the estimated amount of electric power the bulb consumes. To get an idea about the amount of light you need to consider the ratio the electric current is converted into light in such design. And it is far from 100%. We do not even know if the balast for 130W VHO does output equal amount of electric power to the NO bulb in overdriving conditions or not. There are chanses it does if the lenght of the tube and its thicknes is the same, but as Boomer has indicated, things are going "crazy" inside the tube, so it my behave different creating different electrical conditions for the tube being the load for the balast. Good point. I talked to him again and asked him about that. The guy that he knows measured the OUTPUT of the lights. (with a photometer) I cant remember if it was 6000 lumens for the fixture or for each bulb (I'm pretty sure it was each) Anyway, the guy that he knows did the mathmatical conversion and concluded the lights were using 130watts. thats an interesting calculation and interesting wording, but as I didnt do the testing I dont know whats missing from it :) I would suggest to Mort to invite the guy to our newsgroup and ask him to explain results of his tests here... I will be very interesting to talk about this first hand. The difference between 6000 lumens each or 6000 the whole fixture is significant enough that if we do not have this "detail" sorted our we cannot treat this test as educational for us :-) After 1 year, the bulbs are barely darkened on the ends and HE has not noticed a change in the color. noticing spectrum shifts isnt very effective, you really need special equipment Exactly. Human eye adapts to white color in very wide ranges. It is enough to compare to white pages of different paper types. Both seem white when you look at each separately, but you can easily tell which one is "whiter" when you put them side-by-side. I may not try this for my first corals but I am most certainly going to try this for my FW tanks. the best plan Ive heard of yet :), might add FO to the list also :) This plan does not bring us closer to use overdriven NO over reef, where the light spectrum is really important, does it? Wow, if I didn't know better, I would think you were really aggressive =P I will see if I can get this guy to tell the other guy to come to our NG here to discuss this. But you better be nice to him! lol ~Mort |
Overdriving NO Tubes
"Mort" wrote in message y.com...
Wow, if I didn't know better, I would think you were really aggressive =P No, I am :soaked: with friendliness to you guys ;-) I will see if I can get this guy to tell the other guy to come to our NG here to discuss this. But you better be nice to him! lol I could promisse I will try, but you already know that I will probably fail ;-) |
Overdriving NO Tubes
I have no scientific data, but I have been using NO 6500k bulbs from
Lowes/menards/HD for 3 0r 4 years on low light tanks on an Ice Cap ballast. My corals grow well with good color. Tanks are appealing to the eye. Bulbs are 10x cheaper and I replace them every 6 months or when ever I remember to. I usually run a 50/50 mix of 6500k and 03actinic... Now, with that said .. anything but 400watt halides suck ! ;-p Sakis rule! especially when ya use 20kk radiums as actinics(Only usefull as supplimental lighting IMHO) .. Ill save the money and buy the cheap bulbs for my low light tanks and save the money for all of the 400s that I run |
Overdriving NO Tubes
"Anyway, the guy that he knows did the mathmatical
conversion and concluded the lights were using 130watts." I would like to have him show me that trick, as you can't. A bulb could be 6,000 lumens and be 100 watts or 6,000 lumens and 200 Watts. I think you misunderstood what he was saying. 1 watt at 555 nm = 683 lumens and different nm will give a different lumen. But then again if he was using a radiometric spectrophometer he could measure the output of different nm ranges and convert to lumens, as each nm value would have a different peak wattage and adding them up would tell you how many watts of light are being produced or delivered from the but not what the lights were using. It takes wattage to just get the bulb going before there is any light produced. -- Boomer Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php Want to See More ? Please Join Our Growing Membership www.coralrealm.com If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up "Mort" wrote in message y.com... : What do you mean by "putting out 130 watts"? : You rather say "consumes 130 watts". You do not measure the light : output in watts. This is an electric not light output unit... : : : Good point. I talked to him again and asked him about that. The guy that : he knows measured the OUTPUT of the lights. (with a photometer) I cant : remember if it was 6000 lumens for the fixture or for each bulb (I'm pretty : sure it was each) Anyway, the guy that he knows did the mathmatical : conversion and concluded the lights were using 130watts. : : After 1 year, the bulbs are barely darkened on the ends and HE has not : noticed a change in the color. : : I may not try this for my first corals but I am most certainly going to try : this for my FW tanks. : : : : : |
Overdriving NO Tubes
"Boomer" wrote in message ...
Yes Pszemol, the actual watts of light a bulb produces is way below its "power consumption wattage." A 100 watt bulb of x type may only produce 40 watts of light So bad? Only 40%? What could be the max efficiency of MH light source? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FishKeepingBanter.com